Hello All,

Today Blue Origin www.blueorigin.com launched their New Shepard suborbital booster and capsule into space and recovered it successfully, marking this vehicle's third trip into space and back (see: http://www.space.com/32453-blue-ori...third-time.html ). Ironically, one of the comments below the article said simply, "Yawn." BUT:

That *is* the whole point. If space flight is ever going to be more than a series of expensive (although scientifically and economically worthwhile, especially where communications and other types of applications spacecraft are concerned) stunts, the process of going up there and coming back must become as routine and safe as air travel. (Due to the greater energies and velocities involved even in suborbital space flight [which make the consequences of even minor anomalies more serious than they are in jetliner travel], it may never be possible to make *reaction*-powered space launches as accident-free as jet flight [the various non-rocket methods might achieve that level of freedom from accidents], but proper design and multiple safety & abort options could make most such accidents exciting stories rather than tales of tragedy.)

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

All well and good, but suborbital IS (yawn) BTDT...

IF they were flying passengers suborbitally across the Pacific from California to Japan or Australia in 30 minutes, or from the Eastern Seaboard to Europe in 30 minutes, it might be the model for a "new era".

Flying a vehicle that's basically a glorified sounding rocket or some sort of plaything for the super-rich to fly straight up and straight back down without actually doing anything but floating around a few minutes and looking out the window, isn't going to make space any more accessible or affordable.

It's a good start, but it's basically a "reusable Redstone". Not even in the same class as SpaceX's Falcon 9.

Later! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

The ticket price is on the order of $200k. Concorde was on the order of time adjusted $25k. A first class subsonic ticket is on the order of $6k. A private plane with 4 of your best friends is on the order of $35k.

The price differential is large for utility flights, so they are going for the stunt. Also the cross range has a substantial cost. They currently go straight up and down.

You are probably best off flying an A-380, have a dedicated office and VIP lounge, and selling the remaining space to the unwashed masses on a flight available basis.

See Jetsmarter.com

Tech Jerry

You're only looking at one tile of a large mosaic. Blue Origin has always had cislunar and interplanetary travel as their objectives, and to do that affordably requires reusable vehicles (they're developing a TSTO rocket with a reusable VTOVL first stage, and a more-maneuverable [higher crossrange] biconic crew capsule). As Jeff Bezos points out, New Shepard is the smallest vehicle they will ever build, and being the smallest and stubbiest, it is the most challenging to land successfully, balancing itself on its exhaust plume. Perfecting the VTOVL technique with it (which they have now done) will make it easier for them to incorporate the technology into the larger vehicles they're working on (and VTOVL is scalable up to very large sizes, as Bezos mentioned). Also:

New Shepard will make money for the company (the Zeppelin company's first commercial flights were "mere aerial excursions" paid for by well-heeled customers, yet they built the foundation for true point-to-point airline services, which improved heavier-than-air craft took over before long). So what if a ride on New Shepard is only what a rich person can afford? There is no reason why it must *always* be so--we're in the very infancy of truly commercial space flight, and New Shepard will provide the vehicle design & operations experience that will ultimately enable most people to be able to afford it. Even as it is now, though, New Shepard is a useful vehicle for scientific and commercial suborbital work. For example:

Many astronomers fly telescopes (particularly ones for use at wavelengths that are blocked by the Earth's atmosphere) on sounding rockets, because it can take years to book observing time on a space telescope. While such telescopes are often flown multiple times, they have to be rugged (and thus more expensive) in order to withstand the high ascent accelerations and ground impacts under their parachutes. Also, the rockets' solid propellants emit smoke after final-stage burnout, which can dirty-up the telescope optics and/or obscure the view (astronomers liked the liquid propellant Aerobees because they *didn't* have this problem). New Shepard can provide gentle rides for telescopes, which can thus be more cheaply built, and its clean (with positive cut-off) LOX/LH2 propulsion system is free from the smoke and outgassing that can mar the telescopes' views. As well:

Just by flying New Shepard repeatedly, Blue Origin is generating a knowledge base for reusable VTOVL vehicles that is still sorely lacking: How many times can such craft be reused? What level of maintenance will they require between flights? How often can they fly? How will they age, and what components will require refurbishment or replacement the most often? These and other questions can only be answered by flying it a lot. True, this isn't the most exciting space work, but I don't judge a project's value solely by how exciting it is--and it will be boringly reliable space vehicles that will *do* exciting things, and *go* to exciting places. I don't favor Blue Origin over SpaceX (or vice-versa); they're simply taking different paths to reach the same place, and there's no reason--at this point, at least--to conclude that one road is better than the other.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

I have zero smoke solids. I have retro landing soft landing after parachute landings. So there is a solid alternative now. So, now which is lower cost?

A liquid requires a team of 20-60 employees to operate. A solid requires 2-10. The 6-10th are partying.

Soyuz uses retros to land.

Solids can readily target under 3G if you don't use surplus ballistic missiles!

Tech Jerry

But does NASA have this hardware in their sounding rocket inventory? Also, can sounding rockets be flown safely in spaces as small as the valley where New Shepard flies (its launch complex and landing pad are within sight and walking distance of each other)? Smokeless solid motors are a well-proven technology (the upper stage of the Nike-Iroquois [NIRO] was developed for that purpose), and so are rocket-cushioned parachute landing systems, but they are more operationally cumbersome (they're ordnance, and require EOD personnel to handle them, and they involve dropping unretarded spent stages onto the ground). New Shepard's engine can be cut off if it goes awry (I imagine it also has a Flight Termination System), and if its braking/landing maneuver fails, it just falls on or near its landing pad (which happened on a previous flight, while the capsule landed safely).

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

NASA has a purchasing process problem not a lack of available rockets problem.
I have flown high performance rockets in downtown LA for FX deals. You just need a steerable parachute on all parts to land them in a designated LZ.
As you know from your own experience, rocket motors are not "ordnance" and liquids have so many costs and problems solids should always be the first choice as they are with virtually all tactical missiles.

I am simultaneously filled with joy and fury--joy to have learned this, and fury because this exceptional woman and her achievements (which were accomplished against two societal barriers) weren't touted far and wide. If she hasn't been already, Ms. Johnson should (at the very least) be commemorated on a postage stamp! Also:

This brings up something close to my heart. When I see photographs and videos of people at model rocket and model airplane events, or preparing full-size rockets for launch (or engaging in any technological activities), I don't see many non-white people, and among those I do see, there are few black people. (I miss Jonathan Dunbar's presence here.) That saddens me, because those are *human* activities, not things that are of consequence only to white people. Even the high levels of non-participation in such hobby activities by young black people make it less likely that they will pursue technological careers (one usually develops interests in what one is exposed to in youth). A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste, and a mind that never had an opportunity to have its passions fired is a tragedy--which is why, when the opportunities come up, I drop "seeds of possible interest" in the paths of all young people whose paths I cross.

__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR